About your Search

20130420
20130420
Search Results 0 to 1 of about 2
given all that's transpired over the last week. >> he was not read his miranda rights which a lot of people are talking about today. explain the reason why. >> well, in the law there's what they have called a public safety exception to miranda. everybody knows what miranda is. you have the right to remain silent. anything you say can and will be used against you. the police don't have to say that to you if they are in hot pursuit of something relating to public safety. maybe worried about bombs in this case. they're worried about another plot or something else happening. so under those circumstances authorities do not have to give the miranda warning immediately to a suspect. a lot of people out there saying on the right that they ought not give miranda rights or any other kinds of rights to people who are deemed terrorists. people on the left saying you ought to use the regular court to try to try these individuals. this is an ongoing debate about the law in this country. >> let's talk about the penalty that the younger suspect may face. we're still waiting for charges to be file
decided not to read him miranda rights. he's not getting that. feds are envoking an exception to the rule and already the american civil liberties is slamming that decision . we must not waiver from the tried and true judicial system. we'll break down the complicated legal issuings. criminal defense attorney heather hanson is wherulse. >> you catch somebody who might have left a bomb somewhere . you want to keep them safe and question them right now for the public safety. >> that times passed hasn't it. >> the law was in 1984 . that is what it at that time. since then specifically after the times square bombing in 2010, >> attempted. >> the f.b.i. put out a memo that addresses the terrorist cases that they could expand the time in which they can question a suspect without reading them their rights. the question is how long of a time is there. we don't know the answer. >> was it not the letter of the law. but was it the intent of the law to stop an imminent threat against the people. for instance times square bomber had blown something out there and had blown something that the authorities
Search Results 0 to 1 of about 2